The Underfunding Of CEOP And The Police.

Finding Andreas Bauminis

Finding Andreas Bauminis

Given recent concerns raised about the underfunding of CEOP and the police in general, I thought I’d share this story with you.

It should give you an insight into some of the things that are wrong with law enforcement and crimes involving child sexual abuse in the UK and also demonstrate the lengths I will sometimes go to to get to the bottom of a story.

I’ve not published this before

On the 25th  March this year someone tipped me off about this story below. It is from a local free newspaper and I found that it was at that time only being reported in a couple of other local free newspapers. Two weeks later The Express would run a story on it.

A SHOCKING ‘snuff movie’ was found at the Skelmersdale home of a young factory worker along with other appalling child abuse images, a court has heard.

And a judge told Andreas Bauminis: “It is hard to imagine or contemplate a more grotesque, revolting, repulsive and inhuman series of images.”

The disgusting videos were discovered at the home of Bauminis following information from the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation about use of internet file sharing sites.

Police went to his home, which he shared with his brother’s family, including two children, in February last year and seized his computer tower.

When arrested Bauminis said: “I’m sorry, I have downloaded two or three videos involving 12 to 15-year-old girls from a sharing programme.”


Now, ‘snuff’ movies are a very difficult issue to pin down. It is not that movies that are suspected to be of murdered children do not exist but that it is almost impossible to prove that they are genuine and not special effects, a problem that can only have been exacerbated since the 1980s due to technological innovation.

The question that drove my investigation was a very simple one. As a child abuse video had turned up that had convinced a judge which contained evidence of a murder, what further action were the police taking ?

My first call was to Lancashire Police but they had no record of  Andreas Bauminis.

So I then called Merseyside Police but they had no record of him either.

And so I then call the CEOP press office but they could not find him. I explained that the evidence in the case included 20-minute ‘snuff’ video showing a 15-year-old girl being raped, strangled with a wire and apparently murdered before being wrapped in a plastic sheet and dragged out the room. She accepted that it was something that CEOP would be likely to look at but she didn’t know anything about the case.

Right, I thought, I better start from the beginning and check that the story was true and so I called Liverpool Crown Court where a lovely lady there confirmed that the court case had taken place and was true. I explained my dilemma but she had no record of which police force had been involved with this case. However, she did very helpfully suggest that I contact the regional CPS office.

I should just say that both the lady at Liverpool Crown Court and the lady at Merseyside/Cheshire CPS were extremely helpful and efficient.

The CPS did have a record of Andreas Bauminis and gave me a CPS reference number.

I then called Lancashire Police back and after once again asking about Andreas Bauminis who they still couldn’t find, I gave them the reference number the CPS had given me. Hey presto! They found him. They’d misspelt his name!

This raised altogether new concerns. Afterall, if Andreas Bauminis’ name had been spelled incorrectly on the arresting police force’s records, would his name be correctly spelled on the sex offenders register ?

After spending a minute correcting the spelling of Andreas Bauminis’ name on Lancashire Police’s records, I could now finally ask the question I’d originally set out to get an answer to. ‘What further action was being taken in the light of potential evidence of a murder being found when Andreas Bauminis’ home had been raided ?’

The lady in the press office didn’t know but did give me the telephone number of the police station in charge of the investigation.

So, I called them.

‘What further action was being taken in the light of potential evidence of a murder being found when Andreas Bauminis’ home had been raided ?’

The officer who took my call didn’t know but, she said, the officer in charge of the investigation would know. ‘Could I speak to him?’ He wasn’t there and so I gave my name, address, telephone number, and email to the police officer and asked if he could pass on my details to the officer in charge of the investigation so that he could call me back. (I never received a call back)

Undeterred, I called up CEOP once again. In the meantime someone at CEOP press office had looked up and found  Andreas Bauminis. As the newspaper report had suggested the UK investigation had begun after the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation had tipped of CEOP. CEOP had then identified Andreas Bauminis and passed the information on to Lancashire Police.

‘ And’, I asked, ‘What further action was being taken in the light of potential evidence of a murder being found when Andreas Bauminis’ home had been raided ?’

They didn’t know. Once CEOP had passed the information on to Lancashire Police it was their investigation. CEOP’s part had been played.

Didn’t they think that potentially evidence of a ‘snuff’ movie, probably filmed abroad, should have been fed back to CEOP ?

‘Probably, yes’, she replied.

And there you have it. CEOP is a fantastic idea but if it is to work efficiently in the interests of child protection it needs to be a great deal better resourced and act as a central hub which not only feeds information out to regional police forces but receives information back.

The system in the past has not been joined up and that has been part, though by no means not all, of the problems that led to a proliferation of child abuse in the 1970s, 1980’s, and 1990’s but the issues are not just historical. It is better than it was but it is still not properly joined up.


Filed under Abuse, Politics

14 responses to “The Underfunding Of CEOP And The Police.

  1. I was the journalist who wrote this story for the Sunday Express. I interviewed the Detective Constable from Lancashire Police who ran the investigation and who viewed the film in question.

    He was adamant that the young girl – approximately 15, he thought – was killed after being sexually abused (all on camera). He also said that both the victim and the offender’s faces were fully visible, and that they spoke with American accents.

    CEOP possesses facial recognition software and should have at least tried to identify victim or offender from it. It is also – and more importantly, part of a global law enforcement task force which includes US Customs. The latter has the best facial recognition software in the world for identifying victims of sexual abuse on film (and offenders) and has a good record of doing just that. CEOP is formally required to pass on child abuse videos to this global task force.

    Unfortunately, none of the above happened because Lancashire Police failed to send the material on to CEOP – and it didn’t chase it up. The police promised to send the Bauminis videos to CEOP after my Sunday Express piece – but even assuming it did so, it is not possible to discover what CEOP did with them. CEOP, as part of the National Crime Agency, is exempt from Freedom of Information requests

  2. dpack

    well done
    im guilty of naivety in that i assumed that if a judge said they thought a case they were hearing indicated a murder (even a foreign murder)had occurred that would cause a tidal wave of policing to try to establish the facts and seek justice in regards to all involved.

    it isnt only a matter of spelling,lack of (or misused) resources ,apathy etc it would seem that a holistic approach to such things is required .

    we hear a lot about the information age and the secret police state that knows everything but it seems the state cant even get a huge clue regarding a serious crime from a judge in court to a police desk for investigation without a citizen to do it for them.

  3. Marcus

    Great job, Gojam. This is what they depend on. Our collective apathy and indifference. All the dots need to be joined-up to ensure they’re doing what they’re paid for. Well done!

  4. Sabre

    It appears that you have done as much if not more than the authorities!
    The Russian Interior Ministry , which knows a thing or two about policing and intelligence, saw the need to contact our law enforcement.

    Our law raid the offender, give his house a spin, seize computer equipment.
    Some poor sod had to review the material and presumably took the view that he was watching child rape and murder, a forensic pathologist would have been consulted for an expert opinion on age and whether the victim was alive or dead. The evidence would then be passed to CPS for an opinion by leading counsel on charging .
    The Prosecution and Judge came to the view that the child was probably murdered.
    Surely even before trial, it takes ages for serious crimes to get on the calendar after indictment, everyone mobilised to trace the kid? Bring the killers to justice? Rescue other kids? Rescue this kid if he/ she survived?
    Alas, apparently not, Gojam couldn’t get them to come up with anything other than a spelling mistake !

  5. barb

    i was about to say most people dont really understand what a snuff film is . naively they probably think hard core porn which is what i thought embarrisngly. i cant believe the depraved level people sink to .however i wanted you to explain in detail however horrific what a snuff movie is . and then i read through and you did …things have got to stop being so politcally correct and speaking facts as facts for news to be right !!!

  6. godhelpus

    Well done Gojam, if it were not for people Like you, we would all still be oblivious to what really goes on in this Country.

  7. I am amazed by the great turn out today in HoP. sarc. In fact, the only thing that amazes me is how many people still think the government and/or the police are really going to do anything.

    Also curious as to why naming names in HoP is prejudicial to trial. Is there a precedent for that? case law? etc?

  8. Absolutely compelling stuff Jon and very concerning. Well done for your determination mate.

    This needs to be shared with MSM and relevant politicians.

  9. Did the police finally call you back about the movie and possible muder?

    While. I agree with you some things can be explainded by lack of resources not everything can.

    First of, I am speechless that a mere mispellling of a name meant the police could not initially pull up the record. What type of data program do they have? Assuming that most of his name was spelled correctly, surely by typing in a few letters they should be able to pull up all names with those letters. If they couldn’t do that then surely they could cross check by dates – given your call was close to the time the guy was convicted then surely they could have performed such a search and found him that way? If the computer sytems they use cannot perform these simple types of searches – what software systems are they using?

    However, I bet they can,and so question is not lack of funding, but incompetence, laziness, or lack of training on how to use their computers. If it is the last one that worries me, because even a luddite after a 1 hour tutorial would be able to run cross searches and checks. In fact, given the police primary skill is being able to run searches, and cross check information – their inability to do this with a case on which they had just got a conviction is frightening. So, I don’t think it is lack of money. Smacks more of lack of interest, which is further supported by the fact the officer never callled you back.

    As for CEOP even if the information was passed back – you think it would make a difference? You think if all all cases were passsed back to them they would notice – ‘snuff movie overlooked in this case’ ‘potential gang involvement missed in this case’ and so on?. I doubt it – it would just be more information going into a black hole – and those responsible from the police, cps etc – thinking some over division/group was in charge of oversight.

    Bottom line, it is the police job to investigate. How much more money can you throw at people, who see what looks like murder of a young girl, and it seems do nothing further? How much more money can you spend when they can not even do simple searches on a computer, and a misspelled name renders them hopeless? Where, given the potential severity of the crime they didn’t even call you back.

    Everyone that works with government funding always blames lack of resources when they cock up. Truth is on a list of 10 reasons why they failed, I suspect lack of resources is quite low down.

    • No but I was left with the impression that it would be looked into.

      • Given the story you just posted – I am not sure how you could have been,eft with the impression they would look into it. Certainly, would not have been the impression I would have come away with.

        Great that you persisted as much as you did. Having had to deal with these ‘dead letter boxes’ on far less serious stuff, I know how exhausting it can be to get an answer and find out who knows and is in charge. Which supports my point that creating more agencies etc, solve nothing. It just means they can pass you around to even more people who have no idea.

      • I was satisfied that it would be looked at because previously the information from Lancashire Police had not been fed back to CEOP and that CEOP were unaware of the details of the video evidence. They were aware after I’d spoken to them and the lady I spoke to was quite shocked by the details and so I’m satisfied it would have been looked into by CEOP after my call. I also raised it with someone else who I won’t name and if they didn’t take me seriously they certainly would have taken him seriously. I hope that makes some sense.

  10. Pingback: The Underfunding Of CEOP And The Police. | Alternative News Network